Re: [OSPF] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Wed, 29 June 2016 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA0812DC19; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGNcLinop8ep; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A4E12DEA4; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3100; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467209503; x=1468419103; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Y9K1LdXonisWVZ1DGQF891hNAE0rmfo5EePGPOR3XWU=; b=FpdX3sNtzsr8f1PAeRVu+jCk3RSWzbsXWkSBmlCEoUINIbEZt2gIxvZ9 uhslDsqzDz5VnsaPA1LkyX9AJEtDAD/XI3ySJvjhmd/vwtPJo3Of04JcN 3/Tt1NmBdlAi4aT7kjQdQMHy6J4kee+2ZffqwwpNJlvXVHlQDJWH6vNQB g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,546,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="291578529"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2016 14:11:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5TEBfEa015661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:11:42 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:11:41 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:11:41 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR0gcUF3jtcGuPv0GaAtV4pkQ7I6AAfD8A
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:11:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:11:45 -0000

Hi Stephen, 

On 6/29/16, 9:06 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: No Objection
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>Please refer to
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>section 4: Just checking that I've gotten this right. Is the
>following correct?
>If RFC7166 is being used then there is never a need to modify
>packets in a way that would break the authentication. In other
>words, am I correct that this draft doesn't envisage any middlebox
>changing an OSPF packet in between the source (of authentication)
>and destination(s)?

I think it would be undesirable for a middlebox to modify OSPF packets
under any circumstances. I see no requirement for this and, if there were,
transport of OSPFv3 over IPv4 doesn’t expand or contract the types of
modifications that a middle box could perform without breaking RFC 7166.
For both IPv4 and IPv6 transport, the source address is included in the
authentication digest calculation and cannot be modified.


>If that is correct, then we're good.
>If that is not correct, then I think more needs to be said in
>section 4, as it is not at all clear to me how a source could emit a
>packet that a middlebox could modify, without having to share the
>symmetric secret used for RFC7166 authentication with that
>middlebox, which would be fairly clearly undesirable.

>OSPF mailing list